Network Analysis of the Disaster Response Systems in the Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment Recycling Center in South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript discusses on an important topic. However, it requires a major editing to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

Good luck and best wishes!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors’ Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

Aug 2, 2022

Ms. Ines Huang, Section Managing Editor
Sustainability

Dear Editorial Board,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit this manuscript. In keeping with our last communication with you, we are resubmitting this revision before the agreed-upon deadline of Aug 3, 2022. We appreciate the time and detail provided by you and each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful suggestions. We look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in Sustainability.

The authors acknowledge the value of all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers for improving the manuscript. The authors have attempted to address all the concerns, suggestions, and comments documented by the reviewers. The changes made to the original manuscript are highlighted (red color) in the revised manuscript. At the conclusion of this letter are the authors’ responses, point by point, following the specific reviewers’ comments.

Please contact us if you need any additional information or have other questions.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Jihwan Park, Corresponding author

 

Reviewer: 1

 

[Title] The title reflects the context of the study well.

• We newly revised the title of manuscript to "Network Analysis of the Disaster Response Systems in the WEEE Recycling Center"
• Due to clarify the research area and/or target (recycling centers), we revise the title of manuscript. In fact, this research was performed in waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) recycling center in South Korea.

 

[Abstract] The abstract has most of the important components of an abstract. However, the abstract can be further improved by considering the suggestions below:

(1) clearly elaborate the data analysis method.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added elaborate the data analysis method.
• We revised the above-mentioned point to the entire manuscript.
• ‘Abstract (page 1, lines 16 to 19)’

(2) elaborate clearly the theoretical and managerial contributions of the study.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added elaborate the theoretical and managerial contributions of the study.
• We revised the above-mentioned point to the entire manuscript.
• ‘Abstract (page 1, lines 21 to 25)’

 

[Introduction] The introduction highlights clearly about disasters, figures on disasters cases have been highlighted well but only in the context of Korea, perhaps in the introduction, the authors need to also highlight the issue at global/world level and then narrow it down to Korea. The explanation on waste recycling is too short. Perhaps, the authors need to highlight about waste recycling issues in more details. Gaps have been stated clearly. Consider highlighting the following more clearly in the introduction section:

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added World Fire Statistics published by the Center for Fire Statistics (CTIF), to highlight the issue.
• We revised the above-mentioned point to the entire manuscript.
• ‘Section 1. (page 1, lines 41 to 45)’
• And we revised and/or added the characteristic of waste recycling center, where mainly recycle WEEE, to clearly intended meaning.
• We revised the above-mentioned point to the entire manuscript.
• Also, we newly added general information for WEEE.
• We revised the above-mentioned point to the entire manuscript.
• ‘Section 1. (page 2, lines 58 to 70)’

(1) state clearly why is it important to study about disaster response network.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added the importance of study about disaster response network.
• We added the characteristics of the network system and the characteristics of disaster management, and based on this, we suggested that the network system works more effectively in the disaster management system.
• ‘Section 1 (page 2, lines 78 to 91)’

(2) explain clearly about issues in the recycling processing system.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we reviewed contents in manuscript. There should be no misunderstandings in the following part: The reason for this recycling center (Metropolitan Electronics recycling Center; MERC) chosen as a research target workplace was not caused by disaster or accident problems.
• In other words, the reason why this recycling center (MERC) was selected as a research workplace is as follows. First, education and training on safety/health is faithfully implemented, and second, more than 20,000 tons of WEEE is regularly recycled annually, and the number of employees (47 employees) is higher than other (WEEE) recycling centers .
• If you have needed more information for basic information of the MERC and its WEEE recycling process, please refer below;
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 5, lines 232 to 249)’

(3) explain about organizational systems and network for disaster management.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added disaster management organization system and network description.
• We added a description of the Models of Rapid Response Emergency System as a disaster management organizational system and network model.
• ‘Section 1 (page 2, line 92 to page 3, line 106)’

(4) explain about management aspects of recycling processing systems.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we newly added contents for explaining recycling processing system in recycling center (MERC).
• We have added the contents that basic information of the recycling center, current status of the WEEE recycling quantity, and education and training programs for preventing accident and disasters.
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 5, lines 232 to 249)’

 

[Literature review]

(1) The authors need to provide a discussion on the concept of cognitive accuracy as the underlying concept for this study.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added a discussion on the concept of cognitive accuracy.
• We have added cognitive accuracy definitions, characteristics, and related previous studies.
• ‘Section 2.2 (page 4, line 201 to page 5, line 214) and (page 5, lines 217 to 220)’

(2) The authors discussed in detail about past studies on network for disaster management, however, how the network relates with waste recycling centre is not clear. Perhaps, it would be good for the authors to highlight on what have been studies thus far about network for disaster management in the context of waste recycling centre.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we newly added previous studies on the network for disaster management in industrial facilities.
• There are no related cases in the study on the disaster management network system of the recycling center, and therefore, a previous study on the disaster management network in industrial facilities, which is a broader concept, was presented. In other words, according to previous studies, industrial facility disasters occur when response plans are insufficient or risk mitigation processes are suddenly lost, and the recycling centers may also have the similar problems as industrial facilities.
• ‘Section 2.1 (page 4, lines 163 to 172)’

(3) 2.3 The research purpose is normally put at the end of the introduction section. This is redundant, as the authors already mentioned about this in the introduction section. Revisit.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we shifted the research purpose to the introduction section.
• We revised the above-mentioned point to the entire manuscript.
• ‘Section 1 (page 3, line 115 to line 122)’

 

[Methodology] Clearly elaborate the population and sample of this study

(1) provide justification on how the sample size was determined. Why only 47 workers?

• Thanks to your point out. The total number of workers at the recycling center is 47, so we conducted a survey of 47 workers at the recycling center.
• We added the total number of workers at the recycling center.
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 5, line 250)’

(2) Explain in detail about network analysis. Refer lines 182-187. The explanation is too brief.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added a description of network analysis.
• We added the usefulness and utility of network analysis, and added a description of the network analysis indicator (centrality).
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 5, line 250 to page 6, line 263)’
• ‘Section 3.2 (page 6, line 280 to line 282) and (page 6, line 289 to line 292) and (page 6, line 298 to line 304)’

(3) explain clearly about the data collection procedures.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added the data collection overview.
• We visited the WEEE recycling center for a total of five days from April 4 to 8, 2022, and collected data through a structured questionnaire.
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 5, line 250 to line 252)’

(4) explain in detail about questions/measurements used in this study.

• Thanks to your point out. As suggested by reviewer, we newly herewith attached ‘Supplementary file’, original questionnaire survey sheet to clearly delivery designed plan of the research with interviews.
• Please refer to Supplementary file.
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 6, line 274)’

 

[Results] The results have been explained in detail.

(1) There is no discussion section for this article. Perhaps the discussion has been combined with the results section. If this is the case, rename this section as “Results and discussion”. Revisit.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we renamed results section.
• We revised title of Section 4 to "Results and Discussion”.

(2) Elaborate in detail about how the network influence waste recycling centres. Relate the discussion with the underlying concept used and explain in detail whether the results of this study concur or defer with the past studies. Revisit.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added the description of the network analysis results related to previous studies.
• The implications of the network analysis results are as follows. It will act as a limit in establishing a disaster management system in industrial facilities such as WEEE recycling centers. In other words, if consistency is not secured within the network, the department's collaboration capability is hindered, which leads to inefficient disaster response. And if a cooperative network within the organization is not established, disaster response will be hindered due to the failure of actors to set response priorities. Please refer to the below for details.
• ‘Section 4.6 (page 11, lines 425 to 438)’

 

[Discussion] N/A. Refer the results comments above.

[Conclusion] The conclusion is well-explained. However, to further improved this section, it is recommended that the authors add the following subtopics in the conclusion section:

(1) theoretical and managerial implications

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added the implications.
• We added strategies for improving network influence related to empowerment of safety managers.
• ‘Section 5 (page 12, line 482 to page 13, line 488)’

(2) limitations and suggestions for future research.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised and/or added the limitations and suggestions.
• We added limitations and suggestions that we should consider not only intra-organizational networks but also inter-organizational networks, and analyze other industrial facilities.
• ‘Section 5 (page 13, lines 504 to 509)’

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author.,

This issue is quite interesting and the significance of the study and research gaps are clearly stated. However, some improvements are needed (In detail, please refer to my comments and suggestions in the body of the manuscript).

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors’ Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

Aug 2, 2022

Ms. Ines Huang, Section Managing Editor
Sustainability

Dear Editorial Board,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit this manuscript. In keeping with our last communication with you, we are resubmitting this revision before the agreed-upon deadline of Aug 3, 2022. We appreciate the time and detail provided by you and each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful suggestions. We look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in Sustainability.

The authors acknowledge the value of all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers for improving the manuscript. The authors have attempted to address all the concerns, suggestions, and comments documented by the reviewers. The changes made to the original manuscript are highlighted (red color) in the revised manuscript. At the conclusion of this letter are the authors’ responses, point by point, following the specific reviewers’ comments.

Please contact us if you need any additional information or have other questions.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Jihwan Park, Corresponding author

 

 

Reviewer: 2

 

[Abstract] Simplify this sentence.

(1) Simplify this sentence.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised sentence keeping the intended meaning.
• We have revised sentence to simple.
• ‘Abstract’ (page 1, line 10 to 11)’

(2) I noticed that you mentioned two times "point of view" in one sentence. Please revise it...

(3) this study analyzed.......

(4) delete "when" Line 19

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised expressions and correct some grammatical errors in abstract section.
• ‘Abstract (page 1, line 13)’
• ‘Abstract (page 1, line 14)’
• ‘Abstract (page 1, line 16 )’

 

[Introduction]

(1) You can cite some of them at the end of this sentence and what previous studies focus on.

(2) This sentence too long. Please simplify...

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we checked and examined the manuscript.
• The contents of lines 107 to 109 (3 page) are summarized based on the contents of lines 110 to 113 (reference).
• And We thought that lines 110 to 113 are necessary for further explanation in order to present the limitation that management aspects are not considered.

 

(3) Delete, suggests …

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised expressions and correct some grammatical errors in this section.
• ‘Section 1 (page 3, lines 123 to 124)’

 

[Literature review]

(1) Delete…, In order to achieve xxxxxx

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised sentence keeping the intended meaning.
• We have revised sentence.
• ‘Section 2.1 (page 3, line 130)’

 

 

(2) Delete this section

(3) Move this sentence (paragraph) to at the end of "Introduction" section.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we deleted this section, and shifted the research purpose to the introduction section.
• ‘Section 1 (page 3, line 115 to line 122)’

(4) Materials and Methods

(5) Research design, Population and Sample

(5) Delete "Methodology" and replace it with "Data Analysis"

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised some titles in Section 3.
• ‘Method’ to ‘Materials and Methods’ (page 5, line 230)
• ‘Study area and design’ to ‘Research design, population, and sample’ (page 5, line 231)
• ‘Methodology’ to ‘Data analysis’ (page 6, line 275)

 

[Results]

(1) Table 1.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised some expressions in the Table 1 in Results section.
• We have revised some inappropriate expression in Table 1
• ‘Status’ to ‘Job position’ (Table 1)
• ‘Frequency (person)’ to ‘Frequency’ (Table 1)
• ‘Share (%)’ to ‘Percentage’ (Table 1)

(2) Elaborates the meaning of Degree Number (0.483) and Cognitive Accuracy (0.765) for all staff departments and positions

(3) You can add in the methodology section related the threshold of Cognitive AccuracyFor instance, 1> CA is .... 1< CA is .... 0<CA<1 is....

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we added the meaning of cognitive accuracy and degree centrality in Data analysis section.
• ‘Section 3.2 (page 6, lines 280 to 282) and (page 6, line 298 to 304)’

 

(4) Better create the Discussions section...

(5) (Table 6) I suggest you write the result in One section (Results) and another is Discussions... The discussion section is needed to add. Discuss your current findings and compare or finds similar (supported) or dissimilar (contrast) with your findings

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised title of Section 4 to "Results and Discussion".
• This response was also received by another reviewer. So, we renamed Results section to "Results and Discussion". And we added the description of the network analysis results related to previous studies.
• ‘Section 4 (page 6, line 305)’
• ‘Section 4.6 (page 11, lines 425 to 438)’

 

[Conclusions and Limitations]

(1) In the first line, the author should write a brief the importance of the study and then write the conclusion. The conclusion should be referring the proposed hypothesis.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we added the importance of network research in disaster management and the need for research.
• ‘Section 5 (page 12, lines 451 to 458)’

 

(2) 2nd paragraph can elaborate and write the limitation and policy implications to theory and practice.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we added the implications and limitations.
• We added strategies for improving network and the need for a follow-up study.
• ‘Section 5 (page 12, line 482 to page 13, line 488)’
• ‘Section 5 (page 13, lines 504 to 509)’

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would recommend including in the subchapter 3.1 the figure with the organizational structure chart of waste recycling center in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. In this way it will be easier to understand the current subordination of employees in the organization under study. It's also worth considering the replacement of the word workers with the words employees or staff members at the line 160.

Author Response

Authors’ Responses to Reviewers’ Comments

Aug 2, 2022

Ms. Ines Huang, Section Managing Editor
Sustainability

Dear Editorial Board,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit this manuscript. In keeping with our last communication with you, we are resubmitting this revision before the agreed-upon deadline of Aug 3, 2022. We appreciate the time and detail provided by you and each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful suggestions. We look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in Sustainability.

The authors acknowledge the value of all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers for improving the manuscript. The authors have attempted to address all the concerns, suggestions, and comments documented by the reviewers. The changes made to the original manuscript are highlighted (red color) in the revised manuscript. At the conclusion of this letter are the authors’ responses, point by point, following the specific reviewers’ comments.

Please contact us if you need any additional information or have other questions.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Jihwan Park, Corresponding author

 

 

Reviewer: 3

 

[General Comments]

 

(1) I would recommend including in the subchapter 3.1 the figure with the organizational structure chart of waste recycling center in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea. In this way it will be easier to understand the current subordination of employees in the organization under study.?

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we provided information for list of respondents in Supplementary file.
• Please refer to Supplementary file.
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 6, line 274)

 

(2) It's also worth considering the replacement of the word workers with the words employees or staff members at the line 160.

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised wording ‘workers’ to ‘employees’ in whole manuscript.
• ‘Section 3.1 (page 5, line 232)
• ‘Section 4.1 (page 7, line 307)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the revised manuscript. Overall the manuscript has been further improved and most of the comments and suggestions have been well addressed. However, there is a minor editing needed on the manuscript about the suggestions for future research, more details need to be added on the suggestion for future research to ensure future research can be done on this interesting topic. 

Best wishes and good luck!

Author Response

Authors’ Responses to Reviewers’ Comments (Round 2)

Aug 12, 2022

Ms. Ines Huang, Section Managing Editor
Sustainability

Dear Editorial Board,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit (second round) this manuscript. In keeping with our last communication with you, we are resubmitting this revision (second round) before the agreed-upon deadline of Aug 13, 2022. We appreciate the time and detail provided by you and each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful suggestions. We look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in Sustainability.

The authors acknowledge the value of all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers for improving the manuscript. The authors have attempted to address all the concerns, suggestions, and comments documented by the reviewers. The changes made to the original manuscript are highlighted (blue color) in the revised manuscript. At the conclusion of this letter are the authors’ responses, point by point, following the specific reviewers’ comments.

Please contact us if you need any additional information or have other questions.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Jihwan Park, Corresponding author

 

Reviewer: 1

 

Thank you for the revised manuscript. Overall the manuscript has been further improved and most of the comments and suggestions have been well addressed. However, there is a minor editing needed on the manuscript about the suggestions for future research, more details need to be added on the suggestion for future research to ensure future research can be done on this interesting topic. Best wishes and good luck!

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we newly added the suggestions for future research.
• ‘Section 5 (page 13, line 509 to line 516)’

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author.,

The revised manuscript looks great. However, I suggest you edit the title to be "Network Analysis of the Disaster Response Systems in the Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment Recycling Center at South Korea" if possible.

Congratulations

Author Response

Authors’ Responses to Reviewers’ Comments (Round 2)

Aug 12, 2022

Ms. Ines Huang, Section Managing Editor
Sustainability

Dear Editorial Board,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit (second round) this manuscript. In keeping with our last communication with you, we are resubmitting this revision (second round) before the agreed-upon deadline of Aug 13, 2022. We appreciate the time and detail provided by you and each reviewer and have incorporated the suggested changes into the manuscript to the best of our ability. The manuscript has certainly benefited from these insightful suggestions. We look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in Sustainability.

The authors acknowledge the value of all the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers for improving the manuscript. The authors have attempted to address all the concerns, suggestions, and comments documented by the reviewers. The changes made to the original manuscript are highlighted (blue color) in the revised manuscript. At the conclusion of this letter are the authors’ responses, point by point, following the specific reviewers’ comments.

Please contact us if you need any additional information or have other questions.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Jihwan Park, Corresponding author

 

 

Reviewer: 2

 

The revised manuscript looks great. However, I suggest you edit the title to be "Network Analysis of the Disaster Response Systems in the Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment Recycling Center at South Korea" if possible. Congratulations

• Thank you for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we revised the title.
• ‘Title (page 1, line 2 to line 4)’

Author Response File: Author Response.docx